Proposals for centralizing services are often justified on the basis of studies linking the volume of activity to the outcomes achieved. However, the evidence of such studies is far from demonstrating a causal link between volume and outcome. This article assesses the main reasons why volume and outcome studies do not in themselves demonstrate a causal link, and therefore do not provide adequate support for proposals for centralizing hospital services. It then sets out a number of precepts to guide those responsible for proposing centralization of services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HalmE, LeeC, ChassinMR. Is volume related to outcome in healthcare? A systematic review and methodological critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med2002;137:511–20
2.
DavoliM, AmatoL, MinozziS, BargaglieAM, VecchiS, PerucciCA. Volume and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. Epidemiol Prev2005;3–4(Suppl.):3–63
3.
Monash Institute of Health Services Research. Hospital and Clinician Volume or Specialisation in Cancer Care. Monash: Monash Institute of Health Services Research, 2006
4.
HoganAM, WinterDC. Does practice make perfect?Ann Surg Oncol2008;15:1267–70
5.
GruenRL, PittV, GreenS, ParkhillA, CampbellD, JolleyD. The effect of provider case volume on cancer mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA: Cancer J Clin2009;59:192–211
6.
SpurgeonP, CookeC, FulopN, Evaluating Models of Service Delivery. London: HMSO, 2010
7.
York Health Economics Consortium. The Impact of Hospital Treatment Volumes on Patient Outcomes. London: Cooperation and Competition Panel, 2010
8.
Healthcare for London. Cardiovascular Services: Case for Change. London: NHS London, 2010
9.
Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts. Safe and Sustainable. See http://www.specialisedservices.nhs.uk/safeandsustainable (last checked 2011)
10.
MarkmanM. Assigning a cause for a particular outcome in oncology. Cancer2008;113:668–70
11.
SaposnikG, JeerakathilT, SeichenD, BaibergenovaA, HachinskiV, KapralMK. Socioeconomic status, hospital volume, and stroke fatality in Canada. Stroke2008;39:360–6
12.
KhuriSF, HendersonWG. The case against volume as a measure of quality of surgical care. World J Surg2005;29:1222–9
13.
VargheseTK, WoodDE, FarjahF, Variation in Esophagectomy outcomes in hospitals meeting Leapfrog volume outcome standards. Ann Thorac Surg2011;91:1003–10
14.
BurnsEM, BottleA, DarziA, NichollsRJ, FaizO. Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in England as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis on Hospital Episode Statistics. BMJ2011;343:343–6
15.
BiancoFJ, RiedelER, BeggCB, KattanMW, ScardinoPT. Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: further evidence that technique matters. J Urol2005;173:2099–103
16.
NuttallM, van der MeulenJ, EmbertonM. From the many to the few: changes in urological cancer provision. Br J Cancer2005;92: 797–8
17.
MiyataH, MotomuraN, UedaY, MatsudaH, TakamotoS. Effect of procedural volume on outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in Japan:implications towards public reporting and minimum volume standards. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2008;135:1306–112
18.
RothK, NilsenTEL, SorensonKS, HoleT, HaaverstadR. Predictors of long time survival after lung cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulmonary Medicine2008;8:22
19.
GuzzoMH, LanderasperJ, BoydWC, LambertPJ. Outcomes of complex gastrointestinal procedures in a community hospital. Wisc Med J2005;164:30–4
20.
GrantAJ, SedgwickDM. Small can be beautiful; 10 years managing colorectal cancer in a rural general hospital. Scott Med J2011;56: 26–9
21.
NieuwenhuisVB, ChenJW, LibbyJ, Liver transplantation: a small volume unit experience. ANZ J Surg2008;78:128–33
22.
ManleyM, OngK, LauE, KurtzSM. Effect of volume on total hip arthroplasty revision rates in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008;90:2446–51
23.
BrookfieldKF, CheungMC, YangR, ByrneMM, KoniarisLG. Will patients benefit from regionalisation of gynecological care?PLoS One2009;4:e4049
24.
FaizO, BrownT, BottleA, BurnsE, DarziAW, AylinP. Impact of hospital institutional volume on postoperative mortality after major emergency colorectal surgery in English National Health Service Trusts, 2001 to 2005. Dis Colon Rectum2010;53:393–401
25.
YasanugaH, MatsuyamaY, OheK. Volume-outcome relationship in rectal cancer surgery: a new perspective. Surg Today2009;39:663–8
26.
FreixinetJL, Julia-SerdaG, RodriguezPM, SantanaNB, Rodriguez de CastroF, FuizaMD. Hospital volume: operative morbidity, mortality and survival in thoractomy for lung cancer. Eur J CardioThorac Surg2006;39:3360–6
27.
JeganathanR, KinnearH, CampbellJ, A surgeon's case volume of oesophagectomy for cancer does not influence patient outcome in a high volume hospital’. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2009;9:69
SundR. Modelling the volume-effectiveness relationship in the case of hip fracture treatment in Finland. BMC Health Serv Res2010; 10:238
30.
PostPN, WittenbergJ, BurgersJS. Do specialised centers and specialists produce better outcomes for patients with chronic disease than primary care generalists? A systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care2009;21:1–10
31.
PassHA, KlimbergSV, CopelandEM. Are ‘breast focused ‘ surgeons more competent?Ann Surg Oncol2008;15:953–5
32.
NazarianSM, YenokyanG, ThompsonRE, GrisworldME, ChangDC, PerlerBA. Statistical modeling of the volume-outcome effect for carotid endartectomy for 10 years of a statewide database. J Vasc Surg2008;48:343–50
33.
GaynorM, SeiderH, VogtWB. The volume-outcome effect, scale economies, and learning-by-doing. Rec Dev Health Econ2005;95: 243–7
34.
SfekasA. Learning, forgetting and hospital quality. Health Econ2009;18:697–711
35.
KalantN, ShrierI. Volume and outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery: are more and less the same?Can J Cardiol2004;20: 81–6
36.
MarcinJP, LiZ, KravitzRL, DaiJJ, RockeDM, RomanoPS. The CABG surgery volume-outcome relationship: temporal trends and selection effects in California, 1998–2004. Health Serv Res2008;43:174–92
37.
AuerbachAD, HiltonJF, MaselliJ, Expanding on the relationship between volume, quality, and outcomes. Shop for quality or volume? Volume, quality and outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Intern Med2009;150:696–704
38.
BellalJ, MortonJM, Hernandez-BoussardT, RubinfeldI, FarajC, VelanovichV. Relationship between hospital volume, system clinical resources, and mortality in pancreatic resection. Am Coll Surg2009;349:520–7
39.
BillingsleyKG, MorrisAM, DominitzJA, Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery. Arch Sur2007;142:23–31
40.
FrieseCR, LakeET, AikenLH, SilberJH, SochalskiJ. Hospital nurse practice environments and outcomes for surgical oncology patients. Health Serv Res2008;43:1145–63
41.
EltingLS, PettawayC, BekeleNB, Correlation between annual volume of cystectomy, professional staffing, and outcomes. Am Cancer Soci2008;104:975–84
42.
SchellMT, BarciaA, SpitzerAL, HarrisHW. Pancreaticoduodenectomy:volume is not associated with outcome within an academic health care system. HPB Surg2008. Article 825940
43.
PaimelaH, LindstromO, TomminenT, IivonenM, KononenE, KuusanmakiP. Surgery for colorectal cancer in a low-volume unit. Int J Gastrointest Cancer2005;35:205–10
44.
PalmerK. Reconfiguring Hospital Services: Lessons from South East London. London: King's Fund, 2010
45.
HemmelgamBR, GhaliWA, QuanH. A case study of hospital closure and centralization of coronary revasculization procedures. CMAJ2001;164:1431–5
46.
KarthikesalingamA, HinchliffeRJ, PolonieckiJD, LoftusIM, ThompsonMM, HoltPJ. Centralisation harnessing volume-outcome relationships in vascular surgery and aortic aneurysm care should not focus solely on thresholds operative case load. Vasc Endovascular Surg2010;44:566–9
47.
WoutersMW, Karim-KosMHE, le CessieS, Centralization of esophageal cancer surgery: does it improve clinical outcome?Ann Surg Oncol2009;16:1789–98
48.
SimunovicM, UrbachD, MajorD, Assessing the volume-outcome hypothesis and regional-level quality improvement interventions: pancreatic cancer surgery in two Canadian provinces. Ann Surg Oncol2009;16:1789–98
49.
ChowdhuryMM, DagashH, PierroA. A systematic review of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome’. Br J Surg2007;94:145–61
50.
VotrubaME, CebulRD. Redirecting patients to improve stroke outcomes. Med Care2006;44:1129–35
51.
NichollJ, WestJ, GoodacreS, TurnerJ. The relationship between distance to hospital and patient mortality in emergencies. Emerg Med J2007;24:665–8
52.
JonesAP, HaynesR, SauerzapfV, CrawfordSM, ZhaoH, FormanD. Travel time for hospital and treatment for breast, colon, rectum, lung, ovary and prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer2008;44:992–9
53.
BarocasDA, MitchellR, ChangSS, CookspnMS. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostectomy. Urol Oncol.2010;28:243–50
54.
KrausTW, BuchlerMW, HerfarthC. Relationships between volume, efficiency, and quality in surgery- a delicate balance from managerial perspectives. World J Surg2005;29:1234–40
55.
Independent Reconfiguration Panel. Learning from Reviews. 2nd edn 2009. See http://www.irpanel.org.uk/view.asp?id=100 (last accessed 3 January 2012)
56.
Health Services Restructuring Commission. Looking Back, Looking Forward: the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission (1996–2000) Legacy Report, Ontario, 2000
57.
LymanS. Higher hospital volume and specialization. BMJ2010; 340:160–1
